Utility Of The Immature Platelet Fraction In Predicting Recovery With Or Without Treatment In Pediatric Immune Thrombocytopenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Immature Platelet Fraction (IPF) is a novel parameter available on the Sysmex XE-Series Hematology analyzers. It can be expressed as both IPF percent (IPF %) and absolute IPF count (AIPF#). It has been shown that IPF% is higher in Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP) than in the normal population, and correlates with bone marrow platelet production or thrombopoiesis. Objectives To evaluates the utility of the IPF parameters to predict treatment response or recovery in pediatric ITP patients. Method This is a retrospective, single institution study performed at a 165 bed tertiary care pediatric hospital (Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada). We reviewed the medical charts and electronic databases of all patients with ITP who had measured IPF parameters between June 2011 and June 2013. The standard definitions and terminology of the International Working Group were used. Patient age, phase of ITP at the time of the study (acute, persistent, and chronic), initial platelet count, IPF%, AIPF#, and type of therapy given (including observation alone) were recorded. For patients who responded to treatment or had spontaneous recovery without treatment, we analyzed the platelet count, IPF% and AIPF# on subsequent CBCs, then looked at the course of IPF% during platelet count recovery. Comparisons between groups were performed using Kruskal-Wallis tests or Mann-Whitney tests, as appropriate. Association between measured blood parameters was measured using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Within-patient Spearman correlations were also used to study the association between IPF% and platelet counts during recovery. The combined significance of these associations was determined using Stouffer’s method. Results Conclusion IPF measurements are easily available parameters that are useful in the management of ITP in pediatric patients. This study suggests the use of AIPF# as a predictive factor for recovery in pediatric ITP patients with and without treatment, and IPF% as a predictive factor for early recovery. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".